As of now, I am reading The Fountainhead. I started up a conversation of sorts about it in another thread, and rather then continue to derail that one I decided to make my own (the first in a long time). The conversation is as follows:
the monopoly guy said:
Wouldukindly said:
the monopoly guy said:
Atlas Shrugged, if only to say I read the whole damned thing.
I am reading The Fountainhead, and just got to the part where Roark and Dominique...well, yeah. I can't believe. I just won't. I didn't expect that at all; I thought Roark was the good guy, with morals and ideals, and Keating was the two faced bad guy. But then...this! I underestimated you, Ayn Rand, well played. Well played indeed.I still refuse to believe it though, whether or not she enjoyed it.
That part of the Fountainhead has always been argued, the fact is that Howard Roark IS the good guy...Rand said that 'if it was rape, then it was a rape of want' which just complicates things farther. Personally I think she was trying to hint at Dominique's urge for Roark but the reins of society keeping her from doing anything(symbolism at its best). Keating isn't really that bad of a guy, he's just horribly misguided...the other 'villains' of the novel
Gail Wynand and Ellsworth Toohey are taken as examples of the evils of certain systems (i.e. capitalism with the urge to destroy, and socialism, with the urge to dominate)
Roark's speech at the end is one of the most powerful things I've ever read. It almost makes you forget his little 'issue' from before. Almost. Still, all of Rand's work should be praised.
As should one Warren Ellis' work. Transmetropolitan, although a graphic novel, is by far superior to many novels out there. Strong plot, amazing characters, insane setting, and a message that we should all learn.
*as a single teardrop runs down his face*
This, this is why I love the Escapist.
Now, see, I neer identified Toohey as a bad guy, this early in the book there is no real hint that he is bad, other then his bashing of modern architecture. Gail Wynand is obvious, Francon outright states it, as does Cameron and Roark. I'm not very far, just at the point where Keating first meets Toohey. I suppose, Mallorey is it? The man who created "industry" knew that Toohey was bad.
I suppose it would be best to start a new thread, then to keep derailing this one.
I hope you enjoy the book. The Fountainhead has two quotes I love, which I won't spoil until you've read the novel.
I know it's chic in certain circles to poo-poo her worth, but Ayn Rand is my favorite novelist of all time. I likely would not have started a company without having read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. I gave a copy of Atlas Shrugged to all the department heads at Themis.
Rand was the first thinker I encountered in my life who said "it's ok to be smart, it's ok to be ambitious, it's ok to want to pursue what's important to you."
You have summoned the Galt.
I've actually started reading Atlas Shrugged, but for the past year every time I pick it up I get distracted so I'm only half finished.
She's a great writer, at the beginning of the book it talks about architecture for the most part (but I'm probably just too thick to catch the underlying message) and I still couldn't put the book down.
I've read The Fountainhead, and got through about half of Atlas Shrugged (befoe stopping, needing to do other things), and I quite liked them. However, it's a little too '2D' for my liking, what with the protagonists being 'teh bestest EVAR' and the villains being lower than scum.
Wouldukindly actually said that, you mis-quoted.
I did not get that, I could not tell if it was rape or not and was practically freaking out in class when I read it. Luckily it was english and my teacher understood; my friends, however, did not.
EDIT: @ Stompy: On the contrary, at times it is hard to tell if Peter Keating is bad, I had no idea that Toohey was, and then Roark did what he did to Dominique. Yes, everyone knows that Gail is bad, but it's supposed to be like that.
Fantastic writing. I loved the writing of the book. I loved the characterization and the plot, and the way everything interacted.
Unfortunately, I can not forgive it because it's not a novel, but a political agenda in novel form, and one I heartily disagree with.
And honestly, everything else i ranted about when I read it would be spoiler so I'm not going to go into specifics.
I loved her writing and her philosophy. What a breath of fresh air it was and is to read her!
I loved We the Living and Anthem as well. We the Living has a poignant, tragic flavor to it that, on a certain level, I think is a necessary counterpoint to The Fountainhead. I admire the fact that she was honest enough to show that rugged individualism doesn't always triumph - that sometimes the system does wear you down, or finish you off - but that the struggle is nonetheless admirable. (In contrast, say, to 1984, where the struggle is futile).
Cheeze, I completely agree with your assessment of her importance.
Doh! I ended up as a publisher, like Wynand. I suppose it's indicative of how much I love the novel that I sometimes actually worry I'm more Wynand than Roark.
Wouldukindly actually said that, you mis-quoted.
I did not get that, I could not tell if it was rape or not and was practically freaking out in class when I read it. Luckily it was english and my teacher understood; my friends, however, did not.
EDIT: @ Stompy: On the contrary, at times it is hard to tell if Peter Keating is bad, I had no idea that Toohey was, and then Roark did what he did to Dominique. Yes, everyone knows that Gail is bad, but it's supposed to be like that.
Toohey distubed me, even when you are first introduced to him I just felt there was something off about him. He became the character that probably distrubed me the most of all her works for some reason.
I read all of Rand's works while I was in the military. I worked 12-14 hour night shifts and sometimes there was absolutely nothing to do and with no brass around, me and my underlings read.
I enjoyed all her works and found The Fountainhead to be the most uplifting. I just felt completely and utterly inspired when I finished it. Ironically I finished it on my off time, parked by the ocean. I remember looking at it, at everything around it with new eyes. Really a different experience.
A lot of people find her work obtuse though I just think it's the modern generation - they see a book over a hundred pages and call it boring. Atlas Shrugs is a monolith compared to what most of our younger adults read (such as the garbage 'Twiligiht' where vampires sparkle) and think that because it's long it must be boring. In the end her plots are simple with a profund message and I found a lot of things in Atlas Shrugged that I could see in our own society which made me uneasy to say the least.
Kodos to you for reading her work and I hope you enjoy the rest of book and others that she has written.
I loved her writing and her philosophy. What a breath of fresh air it was and is to read her!
I loved We the Living and Anthem as well. We the Living has a poignant, tragic flavor to it that, on a certain level, I think is a necessary counterpoint to The Fountainhead. I admire the fact that she was honest enough to show that rugged individualism doesn't always triumph - that sometimes the system does wear you down, or finish you off - but that the struggle is nonetheless admirable. (In contrast, say, to 1984, where the struggle is futile).
Cheeze, I completely agree with your assessment of her importance.
We the Living is absolutely heart breaking in the end, even more so then the rest of the story. That doesn't make it bad, it just shows that you can't always win the battle no matter how strong you fight. She also goes on to say that the battle is always worth fighting.
I was trained in Russian while I was in the military and had th good fortune of having native Russians on my teaching team. One was a former doctor that had lived about 45 years in Russia (he was in his late 60's when he was teaching the class in 2000) and talked about some of what life was like. Talking to them only made Rand's book even more poignant to me.
I've read Anthem, the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. The only one I enjoyed was Atlas Shrugged. The story was fairly unique and there were a few really good plot twists and segments. No I didn't read all of Galt's speech, as I had her philosophy hammered into my brain enough to make that section boring and mostly unnecessary.
There are a few parts of her philosophy that I think are worthwhile, such as promotion of self improvement and the rights of the individual over the collective, however I'm not a fan of her more extreme views, and I find her greatest fans the most annoying of all. Warning: enormous generalization following: they all tend to be high school or college kids who have never owned a business or had a real job, they tend to be socially inept, and they see themselves as versions of John Galt or Roark, epic crusaders who lead their lives alone, never admitting how much they leach of society or depend on others. I have met more capable Randians, but the ratio is about 1:5 against them.
Personally I'm not a fan of philosophy in general (is there a philosophy for that?). Most of them deal either in metaphors or are set in some alternate world from our own, where men aren't just civilized beasts, or are based on unprovable universal "truths".
Personally I'm not a fan of philosophy in general (is there a philosophy for that?). Most of them deal either in metaphors or are set in some alternate world from are own, where men aren't just civilized beasts, or are based on unprovable universal "truths".
I get kind of the same feeling. Any disagreement with her views in her books seem to be real strawmen setups. It kind of bothers me when a lot of authors do that instead of trying to hold up differing arguments for what they truly are, or honing their views to standup against critical review.
And, as much as the English anti-generalization classes are holding me back, I do have a general distaste for her more rabid fans as well. I actually sat in on a few "objectivist club" meetings on campus, and couldn't stand the throng of overly-sensitive Ron Paul cultists who try to model themselves after the characters. From reading English and Philosophy papers, they also seem way too willing to put their own spin on her "objectivism" so that it doesn't mean anything anymore. If you say I'm generalizing in that last sentence, look at the wikipedia page for Objectivism (Ayn Rand). It's one of the most circle-talking, self-disagreeing things I've read. I could probably find some agreement on it, if her fans could just settle on the same fucking rules without trying to crusade their own beliefs under the flag of her name.
On the other side, she's certainly a good writer, it's just her method of debate that bothers me. The fact that I disagreed with her messages yet breezed through a bunch of her books is a testament to her excellent storytelling abilities.
I read Atlas Shrugged. It's really well written and made me think a lot, but its incredibly heavy going. It took me the longest to read it out of the thousands of books I've ever read. Not exactly entertainment, but I suppose its not meant to be.
EDIT: @ Stompy: On the contrary, at times it is hard to tell if Peter Keating is bad, I had no idea that Toohey was, and then Roark did what he did to Dominique. Yes, everyone knows that Gail is bad, but it's supposed to be like that.
Hmm, perhaps I looked at the characters the wrong way. however, when I read The Fountainhead, the better the person is received by the public, the more 'evil' they end up being.
It's also interesting you bring up 'the scene'; what happens between Dominique and Roark... I find it odd that you say (or imply, rather) that Roark raped Dominique, and it makes him 'more grey' in morality, when what he did was not 'wrong in the context of the book', nor does the book end up vilifying him for it. If anything, you see that Rand favours Roark because of the rape scene, as Roark faces no consequences for his actions, even ending up with Dominique at the end of the novel.
Edit: monopoly guy, if you respond, could you please use the quote feature? That way, it's easier for me to know that you wish to continue this discussion.
The only one I really enjoyed was the Fountainhead. Loved the architectural theme a lot and really related to the characters, although I thought that one sleepover was weird... I mean they were grown heterosexual men acting like sixteen year old girls. Maybe there was underlying homosexuality to some of the characters (that would definitely work with the theme of conformity to societal lower standards vs. majestic individuality) but I did not really break the book down.
The only one I really enjoyed was the Fountainhead. Loved the architectural theme a lot and really related to the characters, although I thought that one sleepover was weird... I mean they were grown heterosexual men acting like sixteen year old girls. Maybe there was underlying homosexuality to some of the characters (that would definitely work with the theme of conformity to societal lower standards vs. majestic individuality) but I did not really break the book down.
I seriously doubt Ayn Rand intended homosexual implications in their relationship as she said in interviews that she considered any homosexuality immoral. An opinion that perhaps goes against the spirit of her philosophy and adheres more to the tone of the times.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
